Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29205300›Full record

ArticleCancer2017

Cervical cancer survival in the United States by race and stage (2001-2009): Findings from the CONCORD-2 study.

Vicki B Benard, Meg Watson, Mona Saraiya, Rhea Harewood, Julie S Townsend, Antoinette M Stroup, Hannah K Weir, Claudia Allemani

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 64 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
64citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

64 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Family physicians' moral distress when caring for patients experiencing social inequities: a critical narrative inquiry in primary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2024
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

4 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Vicki B BenardDivision of Cancer Prevention and Control, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Meg WatsonDivision of Cancer Prevention and Control, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Mona SaraiyaDivision of Cancer Prevention and Control, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Rhea HarewoodCancer Survival Group, Department of Non-Communicable Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Julie S TownsendDivision of Cancer Prevention and Control, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Antoinette M StroupDepartment of Epidemiology, Rutgers School of Public Health, Piscataway, New Jersey.
Hannah K WeirDivision of Cancer Prevention and Control, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6568-9708
Claudia AllemaniCancer Survival Group, Department of Non-Communicable Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

Intramural CDC HHS CC999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOverall, cervical cancer survival in the United States has been reported to be among the highest in the world, despite slight decreases over the last decade. Objective of the current study was to describe cervical cancer survival trends among US women and examine differences by race and stage.

methodsThis study used data from the CONCORD-2 study to compare survival among women (aged 15-99 years) diagnosed in 37 states covering 80% of the US population. Survival was adjusted for background mortality (net survival) with state- and race-specific life tables and was age-standardized with the International Cancer Survival Standard weights. Five-year survival was compared by race (all races, blacks, and whites). Two time periods, 2001-2003 and 2004-2009, were considered because of changes in how the staging variable was collected.

resultsFrom 2001 to 2009, 90,620 women were diagnosed with invasive cervical cancer. The proportion of cancers diagnosed at a regional or distant stage increased over time in most states. Overall, the 5-year survival was 63.5% in 2001-2003 and 62.8% in 2004-2009. The survival was lower for black women versus white women in both calendar periods and in most states; black women had a higher proportion of distant-stage cancers.

conclusionsThe stability of the overall survival over time and the persistent differences in survival between white and black women in all US states suggest that there is a need for targeted interventions and improved access to screening, timely treatment, and follow-up care, especially among black women. Cancer 2017;123:5119-37. Published 2017. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.

Indexed as

RegistriesAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBlack or African AmericanFemaleHumansMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingUnited StatesUterine Cervical NeoplasmsWhite PeopleYoung Adultcervical neoplasmspopulation-based survivalprevention and controltrends

Identifiers

PMID29205300
PMCPMC6386458

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.